An ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. Ad hominems can take different forms, but they all essentially seek to undermine the arguer rather than engage directly with the merits of their case.
What does “ad hominem” mean?
The Latin phrase “ad hominem” literally means “to the person.” So an ad hominem argument is one that is directed at the person rather than what the person is arguing.
Examples of ad hominem arguments
Here are some common examples of ad hominem arguments:
- “John’s argument in favor of raising taxes can’t be right because he’s a lazy person who just wants handouts.” (attacks the arguer’s character)
- “Jane’s stance on abortion is just a result of her own promiscuous behavior.” (alleges bad motive)
- “We should dismiss the senator’s proposal on health care reform since he lacks expertise on the topic.” (attacks the arguer’s credentials)
- “Of course the CEO of Big Oil Company would argue against stricter environmental regulations.” (alleges bias/conflict of interest)
In each of these examples, the merits of the argument itself are not addressed. Instead, the person making the argument is attacked as lazy, promiscuous, unqualified, or self-interested. But none of these characteristics, even if true, disprove the argument itself.
Why are ad hominems fallacious?
Ad hominem arguments are considered fallacious for two key reasons:
- They fail to directly counter the original argument. Even if the personal attack against the arguer is true, it does nothing to show the argument itself is flawed.
- They often rely on stereotypes and assumptions. For instance, accusing someone of bias or questioning their expertise often lacks substantiating evidence.
Essentially, ad hominems derail productive discourse and distract from the original topic. They bypass serious critical thinking and reasoning in favor of attacks on character.
Examples of ad hominem fallacies
Let’s analyze some more detailed examples to better understand why ad hominems don’t work:
Attacking character
James: I think we should raise taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs for the poor.
Jennifer: Of course you’d say that, James, because you’ve always been too lazy to work hard and make your own success.
Jennifer’s attack on James’s character does nothing to counter the argument that taxes should be raised to fund social programs. Even if James is lazy, that is irrelevant to the merits of the policy proposal.
Questioning motives
Emily: I believe abortion should be legal and accessible for any woman who needs it.
Mark: You’re incredibly naïve. The only reason you support abortion is so you can keep sleeping around without taking responsibility for your promiscuous actions.
Mark questions Emily’s motives rather than addressing her actual position. Emily’s own sexual behavior and motivations have no bearing on whether abortion should be legal and accessible.
Dismissing expertise
Doctor: The data clearly shows that vaccines are safe and effective for preventing disease. Parents should have their children vaccinated.
Louise: You’re just a doctor, not a scientist. We should listen to celebrities and bloggers that have done their own research on vaccines instead.
Louise dismisses the doctor’s expertise entirely rather than engaging with the evidence presented. The doctor’s qualifications as a medical professional with direct understanding of vaccines makes his opinion more credible, not less.
How to respond to ad hominems
When faced with an ad hominem attack, the best response is to:
- Point out the attack is an ad hominem fallacy
- Refocus the discussion on the original argument
- Force the interlocutor to directly counter your argument, not attack your person
Don’t get distracted defending yourself against personal attacks – that gives credence to the ad hominem. Keep the debate centered on facts and evidence relevant to the argument itself.
Conclusion
Ad hominem arguments attempt to undermine positions by attacking the arguer rather than constructively engaging with the argument. They dismiss opinions as products of bias, ignorance, or questionable character. But even if these personal critiques are true, they don’t disprove the validity of the argument being presented. That is why ad hominems are considered flawed, sophistic logic.